Author Topic: Healthcare  (Read 13812 times)

Son of Liberty

  • --Son of Liberty
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 42
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2010, 06:11:43 AM »

Probably you are not interested, but there are four things I would point out to you.


Of course I'm interested!  I know it may not seem like it to people who don't agree with me, but I always like to look at the other views in addition to mine.  (That way you can get the best from both worlds  :).)

Yes, we sure have unleashed a hot topic.

I am of the mind that this Knot Forum is not the place for this.

To me it is the kind of topic that has and is the type that potentially drives people/members  to other things, perhaps even making this forum a little less attracting.

Please take this topic offline with each other.

In my opinion this forum is not a pulpit for the wisdom s of of the few to share.

I know I have the right and the ability to not read or contribute to this, but I would hope that this topic could be served better elsewhere and that the subject and members I have some respect for not be sullied further.

Thanks,

Scott


I do hope we haven't scared anyone off!  Politics are a touchy topic.  It's amazing though, how so many different view points can be brought together by one thing--knotting.

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Smith, Mr. Lehman, and all the other posters who disagree with me on this forum.  Other?s views are just as important as mine?we?re all in this game of life together.  I apologize if it seems like I?m being insulting?as I?ve said, it?s hard for text to get emotions across.  If anyone thinks I?m throwing punches, please call me out on it!  I don?t want anyone to think I hate them for disagreeing with me.  (I?ll guess I?ll try to include more smiley faces from now on .

@SoL

Thanks for that link, sadly it read like one of those charming Jehovah's Witness 'Watchtower' novels.  Right from the get go it was making fun of the theories, so it was never likely to make a serious analysis of any of them.


I?ve been stretched for time, so I didn?t have much chance to read through the whole site, but the parts I read didn?t seem like they were making fun of anything.  Plus, popular mechanics is supposed to be a fairly good source, so I assumed they wouldn?t sling any mud.  Not to say there wasn?t any slinging in there though?I just didn?t find any in my brief overview.  I apologize if there was any.

Speaking of time, I need to get away from this topic and back to my work :).  I?ll be back in a couple days.

-Son of Liberty

« Last Edit: March 29, 2010, 09:35:24 AM by Son of Liberty »
All men die.  Few men really live.
--Brave Heart

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2010, 11:46:37 AM »
@SoL,

Destroying the credibility of a subject is a powerful tool, and strangely, the lighter it is applied, the more effective it becomes.

The opening page of the article is couched in terms set to accord with the readers if they are already sceptic and aimed at scorning a reader if they have given any credence to any particular theory.  (emphasis mine)

Quote
Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States

Quote
Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.

They dismiss the demolition theory by glibly talking about the floors 'pancaking' and make no reference to the substantial amount of analysis that has gone into reviewing the (im)possibility of this 'perfect downing' event, let alone the impossible chance of it happening twice in exactly the same manner.  Indeed, to suggest that these buildings were not designed to withstand fire and impact does a great disservice to the designers and engineers who created these icons.  Even had every floor fallen, the cores should have remained standing - even some of the comparatively fragile outer shell remained standing, yet the structural cores, massively stronger by comparison, were levelled.

The smoking gun is well in evidence - the only questions remaining are 'How and when was the thermitic demolition charge applied ?'

But then, perhaps too few people want to know the answer to those questions.  The answers and their implications are perhaps too horrendous to contemplate.

After all -what would you do when you discovered it was the truth ?

Derek

Justin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #32 on: March 29, 2010, 04:38:58 PM »
I love threads like this
Dan Lehman

Well stated I think we must have very similar beliefs on the value of life and the uselessness of war.

Knot Head

Quote
I never said anything about a specific people.

Correct, sort of.  you made a blanket statement about all immigrants to The US Legal or Illegal the only ones left out of your statement are those who are trying to immigrate legally and are still waiting on citizenship status.

Quote
Here in my country we have a big share of immigrants that are not even on our governments books for citizenship, and yet our system takes care of them through the welfare and social security. Most of them are just plain lazy and getting fat off the American tax dollar.

« Last Edit: March 29, 2010, 04:44:42 PM by Justin »
Justin

Son of Liberty

  • --Son of Liberty
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 42
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #33 on: March 31, 2010, 05:44:55 AM »
Mr. Smith--I am deeply sorry that my link offended you and others.  In my scan of the site I skipped the introduction and went straight to the fact sheet links above.  I hope you know that I am not here to insult anyone, and I hope you can forgive me.

Here's a site that's more professional in their mannerisms: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/

Here's my interpretation of what it says:  The steel structure with spray on thermal coating was certified at a certain temperature.  This coating was bypassed on several columns though, when the plane severed them, and caused damage to many others.  Severing only a few columns would not make the building come down.  Despite the thermal coating being bypassed in these columns, hydrocarbon flames are still not hot enough to melt steel, but they can weaken it enough to the point where the load of the tower would be too much to bear--even with the coating still intact.  As the first columns were severed, the others became overly stressed.  In the end, the steel frames failed, causing the towers to come down.

The inner and outer cores, although relatively strong, were weakened by the heat, and the falling floors brought them down with them.  The inner core would not still be standing with all that weight brought down on them, coupled with the weakening power of the flames.  Also, once the momentum built up, the force coming down would be amplified, requiring the steel to be stronger and stronger as time passed.

The pictures of cut steel in the photos of your attached report are from rescue operations.  Contrary to what the writer said, acetylene torches can spill the molten metal they cut on the inside and outside of the column--especially if there was weight above the cut.  Also keep in mind that the rescuers weren?t concerned with how pretty the cut looked, but rather how they could get to the victims the fastest and most efficiently.

How could this thermite get into the building in the first place?  One clean cut of one steel column would require approximately 100 lbs of thermite.  However, if the molten flow really is molten steel, then the thermite quantity would have to have been many times more than that.  One truther paper I read said he suspected the thermite was brought in on pallets.  How could this much explosive material go unnoticed?

The thermite that was in the building was from the construction and building supplies.  Also, the center was packed with gypsum. 

 ?Additionally, on February 14, 1975 a major fire occurred, the result of arson, which began on the 11th floor of the North Tower during the middle of the night. Spreading through floor openings in the utility closets, it caused damage from the 10th to 19th floors, though this was generally confined to the utility closets. However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor?s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat. 132 firefighters were called to the tower in response, and because the fire was so hot, many got their necks and ears burned.?

This fire was hot enough to buckle the steel floor, and it wasn?t even feed by jet fuel?just ?paper baskets, etc.?  If thermite was used, then it was that which was in the building materials (placed there without a malicious intent).  I highly doubt the US government planned this whole thing over 25 years before the fact.

The thought that the towers couldn?t fall into their footprint is false as well.  As the center of the tower buckled and fell, and brought down its surroundings as well.  It takes a lot of skill to do something like that, and only a few contractors are willing to even do it.  Which brings us to why would the government want to do it?  If it?s so hard to do, and if a normal building can?t fall like it, then why give the public a ?smoking gun? like that?  If they?re smart enough to do all the necessary math and physics to control a demolition that size and put it in its own footprint, then they would know that the public would become suspicious if it didn?t follow the normal laws of physics.  And, if their intent was to rally support, why not let the towers fall all over the place to begin with?  That?d end more lives, cause more damage, and would be more ?mechanically correct? (according to truthers). 

SoL,

Hitler was evil for attacking his weaker peaceful neighbours and for the genocide of the Jews, much like Blair and Bush are evil for attacking the non warring and much weaker Iraq and wiping out vast numbers of the civilian population.

You say the American forces are fighting to redress the murder of thousands of innocents on 9/11 and they would not fight in Iraq without that fire of retribution. 

We're not attacking Iraq; we're attacking the terrorist groups and extremist regimes within Iraq.  And these people are warring.  Also, they're not just fighting for revenge, but to prevent future attacks, and help the oppressed people who were under terrorist control.

@Mr. Lehman

>No, I'm referring to Cheney-Bush lying to invade a non-involved country,
>in pursuit of a different agenda, which they had been planning well prior
>to the terrorist attacks of 2001-09.  Their focus was on Iraq and not Al
>Quaida, to the dismay of some of those in the administration, such as
>Richard Clarke (who cited the gratuitous attack on & invasion of Iraq
>as a great boon to Osama bin Laden's radical Islamist goals -- HE, after
>all, was after Hussein's hide and the Bathists' rule).  Bush was bin Laden's
>pawn in this, and provided a great rallying event for anti-American sentiment.

I guess we?ll never have any proof of what the Cheney-Bush administration was trying to accomplish by going to war, since we can?t see inside their heads.  I can say for certain though, that the reason I?ll be there soon is to help and heal my fellow soldiers, as well as the innocent people of the Middle East who were either caught in the cross fire or abused by terrorist regimes.

>As ridiculous as the fact that the invading US army secured the oil
>industry building while not guarding weapons depots.  Yeah, right,
>oil was maybe a coincidence.

I don?t remember seeing that.  Are you referring to allied weapons depots, or enemy weapon depots?  Either way, an oil field should be secured?otherwise it?s nothing more than a big bomb.

>Yeah, right.  Just like those Blackwater guards loved to drive in
>places without traffic cops.  And some of those prison guards just
>liked to make the odd home video ... (higher ups may be excused
>for all this, tsk tsk).

Blackwater is a private contractor, not the US military.  Private contractors usually have a record of little digression, and probably shouldn?t have been hired in the first place.  Also, those ?home videos? were isolated incidents?you can?t assume every soldier would do that.  The fact that they were punished shows the military doesn?t approve of it.

>With incredible --that means unbelievable, indefensible-- misnavigation!

I?m not sure what you mean.  There were actually reports that a lead terrorist was at the towers a day before to input the coordinates into a GPS system.

>... were on the USA payroll with gifts of war gear not so long prior.
>The list of terrorist nations is a rather politically convenient one
>depending on what some in power see as their (in *our* name) interests.

At that time they were on our side.  People betray each other everyday.
 
>Which good Christian verse will you cite for this?  Whom would
>Jesus kill first (I thought he turned the other cheek)?  You must
>have a lot of asterisks in your book of love.

I will cite no Christian verse.  War is not a Christian matter, and wars should never be fought under the flag of any religion.  Also, water boarding is a non-lethal, non-perm ant-damaging method that could save lives by obtaining important info.  In a perfect world no one would have to get hurt, but I would sacrifice the comfort of the evil to save innocent lives any day.

>???  Where do you come up with such nonsense?  Why not say that
>they eagerly suggest that they've more secrets to tell, each time they
>get thirsty!  (It is an amazing thing that Khalid was tortured some 180
>times, and this we are supposed to believe indicates an efficacious
>practice, nevermind morals &, at least, laws/treaties!)  And do keep
>track of how many so-called "terrorists" are ever really shown to be
>such (such as the poor Syrian taken captive en route Canada by US
>and sent to Egypt to be, uhm, maybe given back rubs?, on some
>belief --unfounded, wrong-- that he was a "terrorist" or maybe knew
>one or ... .  No apology from this moral country that I know of
>(Canada at last did).

Actually, Khalid was boarded 266 times.  First off, the fact that he survived that many times indicates that boarding doesn?t do permanent damage?it only creates the sensation of drowning.  Keep in mind though; he was one of the plotters behind the attacks, so we knew he was an enemy.

As for that Syrian you mentions: I said that I would board every prisoner of war that we have, if I thought it would save a life.  This Syrian didn?t pick up a gun and shoot as us, so you can?t claim I would support boarding him.  Just because someone has darker skin than us doesn?t mean he?s a terrorist.

>No, I meant what I wrote:  you live in Iran, you see the USA
>drum up an excuse and go invade Iraq, and you hear the good
>Christian words of Bush cite you as one of a trio of "Axis of Evil"
>states, and ... :  let's see, Korea has a nuke, no invasion; Saddam
>didn't, oops!
>Much of Iran would like to be rid of ... whom we'd like to be
>rid of, just as much of USA wanted to be rid of Cheney-Bush.
>Christian crusades aren't the answer.

Ok, my mistake.  I thought you were referring to the beginning of the conflict in the Middle East itself. 

Iran was labeled as such because they supplied weapons to our enemies.  That?s indirect warfare.

Korea wasn?t attacking us at the time.

There is no such thing as a true Christian crusade.  It is fine to prey to your God in war, but to claim that you?re fighting because of God (which I didn?t state in my reasons for the war) is an insult to your religion. 

>Whose home do you think Afghanistan is?  Not that you (or I) might
>like the way they managed it, but it was their home

Germany was Hitler?s home as well.  That didn?t give him the right to kill his citizens who didn?t match up to his idea of ?perfect.?

>Hey, they WERE IN CHARGE for 8 years.  Where was THEIR bill,
>nevermind their nuisance attempts to thwart others' efforts.

They?re thwarting other?s effort because they think the bill will be a hazard to America.  Rushing to fix something isn?t the answer, if your rush will cause you to mess things up even more.

>As though this is a novel thing, for Congress? 

Passing a bill you haven?t fully read is never acceptable.

>Uh-huh, surely you cannot be so unware of their meeting in which what
>was told was how to Stop Obama, fearing the momentum his election
>brought?  There was no desperate will to work with anything.

I was referring to the bill, not Obama?s election.  That?s a different can of worms.

>... give the answers pollsters seek.  There are many polls out there,
>and a science to how to ask for what you want to hear.

It is true that many polls are written to get the answers the pollsters want, but this particular poll was conducted by Quinnipiac University as a national service, not to sway opinion.  If I had taken this poll from a Republican website, I would have been more cautious to believe it?s outcome.

>Earmarks are not "aka bribes" any more than anything else:
>they are ways to target funds -- for good or bad motives
>(e.g., one could be targeting funds to ensure that a good
>project got them, and not that funds leaked into areas not
>part of the rationale for their award).

These earmarks are incentives for certain congressmen to vote for the bill.  This is buying a vote.

>And you see this happening, in any likelihood?
>Jimmy Carter decades ago in some interview lamented that
>people have no clue as to how much of our government is
>essentially one of bribery.  And it's a price demanded by the
>high cost of campaigning, under that great "free speech"
>protection George Will luvs to rant about --  those hugely
>costly, emotion-tingling, empty rhetoric PR boosts over
>the airwaves, pumped up at the last minute, timed just
>so by the experts on marketing.

Of course I don?t see it happening?I was merely stating that to show the significance of the matter.  Jimmy Carter should have reported the incidences he saw if he really disapproved of it.

>There is an economics of such a system that needs the cash
>flow.  When your corporation finds an *out* on your insurance
>to avoid a claim, or bumps your rates to put you in bankruptcy,
>I don't think you'll be so happy.  So, far, so good for you?

I?m not sure how corporations finding an ?out? relates to forcing the public to buy a product.  Just because the universal healthcare system needs funds to operate doesn?t mean it?s right to force the public to buy a product.


>They weren't charged for being successful.  You need to read the
>case against them.  They were putting the screws to even Intel,
>and it certainly wasn't because they were such great innovators
>and could win business easily with their superior products.  Rather,
>they forced themselves in.

That was my mistake?I should have elaborated more.  I was referring to how a company that follows legal guidelines becomes a monopoly, but then is charged with antitrust laws at its height.  As I said, corporations should follow moral and legal guidelines when operating their businesses.

>There is a gulf of difference between healthy eating and what our
>food industry markets for us.

They don?t hold a gun to our head and make us eat chocolate bars.  But I agree they are VERY effective in their advertising.  Unfortunately, many people don?t have the self-control to know when to stop, or when to eat better?but the companies can?t be blamed for their lack of discipline. 

>"murder" is a legal term, and clearly abortion isn't murder.
>That's your belief.  And it's a tough nut to deal with, when
>such beliefs differ.  We don't all share that belief.

It still remains that abortion is the taking of a life.  What defines life?  Is it when one is able to defend themselves, or when we see a face so we feel guilty?

>This is patent nonsense.  That data on guns show that they cost
>lives, not save them.  -- the accidents, the heated arguments, ... .
>A person doesn't go around and point a gun at every stranger,
>and the criminal gets the jump; with a gun in your back, you
>aren't reaching for one of your own -- too late.  And AK-47s
>aren't hunting tools, either.

No matter how much gun control you enact, criminals will still get a hold of them.  Taking them away from the civilians just makes them more susceptible to attack.  As for the data, more violent crimes take place in Washington DC than the national average?and DC is a gun-free zone.  I assume you?re taking your stats from the UK? (Correct me if I?m wrong).  The US and UK are two different countries though, and those numbers can?t be conclusive without taking them from within the culture being studied.


>Brothels create jobs, so do drugs.  What happened to your
>desire to save lives?  Tobacco was long ago cited as a major
>life stealer, slowly, painfully.

I just stated that tobacco is a horrible product.  I obviously don?t want anyone to use it, but the government doesn?t have any right to tell them what they can or can?t do to their bodies.  Just because tobacco takes lives, doesn?t mean you can count out the one positive aspect of it?its job creation.

>"They"?  The great govt. of, by, & for the People?  They do
>this?  Maybe democracy is a bad idea?  Maybe the Texas books
>can say that tabaccy is fine & dandy, light up and make a job
>-- one for the grower, one for the wholesaler, one for the marketer,
>several for healthcare!  And then we can all vote for that.

Actually I meant the user of the product.  And what I meant was, they might turn to a tobacco alternative that burns and tastes similar?especially with all the flavors they can put in them now-a-days.

>No, no.  We have a stupid voting system that makes 3rd parties
>problematic (and a 2-party deathgrip on maintaining status quo).
>Voters should vote preference, to influence ANY possible
>candidate A v. B choice, not have to guess who might have the
>best chance of those having your favor -- Bush over Buchanon, say.
>But we're talking about PERCENT WHO VOTED FOR ... and that
>is of ALL electorate:  i.e., many did not vote.  That has nothing to
>do with 3rd-party detractions.

From what I can understand, we don?t have differing views on this.  I don?t like the fact that people vote just because of party ties, and in this case 51% of the population wasn?t required to vote in a new candidate (only 34%, assume two other candidates got 33% each.)

All I'm going to say is that if we continue to allow governments to push their Utopian agendas by stepping in and curtailing the actions of commercial entities, we're eventually going to end up with a idyllic world society like Roddenberry and others envisioned. And where will that get us? So happy and peaceful that we become bored enough to search out trouble and challenge amongst the races already populating the stars?

No.. I say to you the answer is too allow commerical entities to run amok unleashed. Only then will we achieve the Mega-corp ruled dystopian futures of Bladerunner, Rollerball, Soylent Green, Shadowrun, and other such visions. Only then can we see the dark, gritty, desparate livelihoods set forth in those epic ideals.


Let's face it, which is going to have a greater need for our kind and our knowledge? One where ships are 'tied up in port' with tractor beams? Or one where life and death is determine by being able to quickly and skillfully use electrical wire to tie that prosthetic leg back on till you can get it fixed by some back alley butcher with a medical book and a soldering iron.

If you want to cite fictional works, how about The Giver, where the governent tries to silence a boy for finding out the truth.  Or Harrison Garrison, where a man who chooses not to wear his clown makeup and weights (used to make everyone equal and to completyly redistibute not only the weath, but every quality of life) is hunted down and killed in a haze of government gunfire?

I love threads like this
Dan Lehman
Well stated I think we must have very similar beliefs on the value of life and the uselessness of war.



Mr. Justin.  I hate war as well, but I don't think it's useless.  If you were in charge, what would you have done in response to Pearl Harbor, or an unpromted invasion of Huns, etc?  Not to be sarcastic--I'm truly interested in what other logic might be used on the matter.

--Son of Liberty
All men die.  Few men really live.
--Brave Heart

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #34 on: March 31, 2010, 12:55:22 PM »
Hi SoL,

From my readings of these  posts, no one has been offended and there has only been one light hearted warning that the subject might get tempers a little heated.

However, I take it from your switch to using the very formal 'Mr. Smith' salutation instead of the customary 'Derek', that I have in fact ruffled your sensibilities.  If this is the case, I would hasten to assure you that I am in no way making an attack on you or your opinions, and that my posts are simply offering 'factual' information on this topic which paints a very dark alternative perspective on the 9/11 'trigger' and the Iraq war.

Thanks for you new link, it is certainly couched in far less emotional terminology and indeed shows that a large number of critical questions are now being asked of those undertaking the investigations.  Note again however, that in reading those reports, a significant amount of interpretation is necessary in what is said and indeed in what is not said.  Again, what is written is aimed at confirming for the person who wants to believe that there is no home hand in this disaster.  Note also, there is a complete absence of any answer as to why state of the art nano technology Aluminothermics were present in significant quantity in the dust which settled over the city. Ask the question - Why are they blind eyeing this smoking gun?

Quote
How could this thermite get into the building in the first place?  One clean cut of one steel column would require approximately 100 lbs of thermite.  However, if the molten flow really is molten steel, then the thermite quantity would have to have been many times more than that.  One truther paper I read said he suspected the thermite was brought in on pallets.  How could this much explosive material go unnoticed?

The thermite that was in the building was from the construction and building supplies.  Also, the center was packed with gypsum. 

The analysis of the thermite residues shows them to be 'STATE OF THE ART'.  The finer the aluminium particles the more efficient the thermite, and in these samples the aluminium was uniformly present as nano particles - far less than your quoted "100 lb per cut" would have been necessary and the analysis suggests that the cutting charges could have been applied underneath the recently renewed insulation layers.  Yes, this would have been forward planning on a significant scale - in fact in line with the owner (Silverstein) taking out extended terrorist insurance cover in 2001 (after having bought it in 2001 for $15 million) and negotiating the rights to redevelop the area should a terrorist attack occur ? ? ?  Silverstein walked away with seven billion dollars compensation (yes $7,000,000,000) along with full rights to redevelop the primest real estate in the USA  --  As you folks have coined the phrase  --  "Follow the money..."

See here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4&feature=related

As for your comment that
Quote
The thermite that was in the building was from the construction and building supplies.  Also, the center was packed with gypsum.

These state of the art thermites did not exist when the towers were constructed so how can you say they were used in construction, let alone the fact that these materials are used for demolition when the site is safe, they are never used for precision cuts in construction - where did you get your reference from - it is clearly in error.  Also, gypsum? what has this to do with Aluminothermites ?

Re the floors pancaking when the spandrels are deformed by heat - yes it was modelled by the designers that this could happen, but the slightest bit of out of balance causes the falling material to spill out one side, so even if a genuine weakness had occurred at the impact point, the top(s) should have tipped over and 'fallen off'.  The cores of these buildings were immensely strong and should have been left standing even if all the floors pancaked - yet they were levelled.

I will attempt to recover the site that did a thorough analysis of the dynamics of destruction of these buildings for you to read.  For one building to fall straight down is a fluke of unimaginable improbability - for both to do it and then hours later to be followed in the same fashion by building 7 begs a rational mind to say - Oh yeah? who are you trying to kid.

Finally, if the unexplained presence of high tech demolition charges in the debris, coupled with the perfect 'pulling' of these three buildings is not enough to make you think, then consider this last little possible 'Own Goal'

The BBC were informed that building 7 had collapsed despite the fact that it had not been hit by terrorists. OK so far...

Yet the reporter was standing in front of the building and it was still standing.  Clearly, she did not know the building the report referred to was building 7 - yet the report had already been published that the tower had fallen see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc  Shortly though the report though, the feed is lost --  OOPS . boobo there or what ?

Derek



DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2010, 01:34:31 PM »
Another little snippet you might care to watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4&feature=related

Derek

Lasse_C

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 305
  • The price of skill is neverending practice
    • Photo galleries (Text in Swedish)
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2010, 02:03:02 PM »
To rewind the discussion a little bit:
I looked a little closer and according to figures I have found, which seem official and credible, about 62% of the US population voted when Obama was elected (and this very unimpressive percentage was apparently high compared to many other elections! :o).

He was elected by about 52% of the votes.

So, let us see... 52% multiplied by 62% means that... 32%, less than a third, of the population supported him enough to drag their lazy behinds to the election offices and actually vote! And this was the figures for the guy who won, mind you! No offence, but the democratic system in the US has some really serious problems, in my opinion.

Lasse C

Justin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2010, 03:55:42 PM »
Quote
Mr. Justin.  I hate war as well, but I don't think it's useless.  If you were in charge, what would you have done in response to Pearl Harbor, or an unpromted invasion of Huns, etc?  Not to be sarcastic--I'm truly interested in what other logic might be used on the matter.

When I say war is a useless act I am referring to those who start it not those who are the victim of it and a better word for me to use would have been pointless or senseless.  Yes when an act of war is carried out against a country it must defend its self.  In some cases that defense must be taken out of the country.

I know you are using the Mr. to denote that you are having a civil gentleman's conversation so if you must the last name is Toliver.  Mr. Justin just sounds strange to me :D
Justin

Son of Liberty

  • --Son of Liberty
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 42
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #38 on: March 31, 2010, 04:22:39 PM »
However, I take it from your switch to using the very formal 'Mr. Smith' salutation instead of the customary 'Derek', that I have in fact ruffled your sensibilities. 

Oh no, I always use "Mr. and Ms.?  If I haven't used it before on this forum, then that was my fault.  It's just a sign of respect that I like to use.  I even use it for several very good friends of mine who are around 10-20 years older than I.

As for the gypsum, I read in a truther article that the presence of sulfur indicated that explosives were used.  Gypsum is a form of sulfur used in building materials that might explain the presence of them.

I suppose that we both have respected sources on either side that dismiss each other's evidence with other scientific fact, and use alternate reasoning for the implied results and motives.  When it comes to this, perhaps all we can do is interpret.  Don't think I'm not for an investigation into the collapse though--even if it doesn't turn out to be proof of an inside job, then they could at least find out what weakness made the buildings collapse so they could hopefully prevent such disasters in the future.

To rewind the discussion a little bit:
I looked a little closer and according to figures I have found, which seem official and credible, about 62% of the US population voted when Obama was elected (and this very unimpressive percentage was apparently high compared to many other elections! :o).

He was elected by about 52% of the votes.

So, let us see... 52% multiplied by 62% means that... 32%, less than a third, of the population supported him enough to drag their lazy behinds to the election offices and actually vote! And this was the figures for the guy who won, mind you! No offence, but the democratic system in the US has some really serious problems, in my opinion.

Lasse C

Yes, voting turnout is very low.  It's a shame more people don't exercise the rights they are blessed with.  I asked one of my friends why he didn?t vote in the past election, and he replied that he didn?t care.  How can one not care about the next four years of their life?!  My philosophy behind that though is, if they didn?t vote, they can?t complain if things go bad.

Every system has its problems, but I suppose we must choose which one that we feel is the best out of the collection of flawed ones humanity has amassed.

Quote
Mr. Justin.  I hate war as well, but I don't think it's useless.  If you were in charge, what would you have done in response to Pearl Harbor, or an unprompted invasion of Huns, etc?  Not to be sarcastic--I'm truly interested in what other logic might be used on the matter.

When I say war is a useless act I am referring to those who start it not those who are the victim of it and a better word for me to use would have been pointless or senseless.  Yes when an act of war is carried out against a country it must defend its self.  In some cases that defense must be taken out of the country.

I know you are using the Mr. to denote that you are having a civil gentleman's conversation so if you must the last name is Toliver.  Mr. Justin just sounds strange to me :D

Good point Mr. Toliver ( :)).  I'd say we have the same view on the matter, and just differing views on the reasons for the current war.  I would only add though, that if a government is  engaging in genocide and invading other neutral countries (specifically referencing WWII and no other wars) then a country with the military means should take action to end these abuses (assuming all other means have been exhausted).  Would you agree to that, or do you prefer isolationism to avoid wars that don't directly involve specific countries?

--Son of Liberty
All men die.  Few men really live.
--Brave Heart

Justin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #39 on: March 31, 2010, 05:24:09 PM »

Mr. SoL
No, I agree in the case of WWII, in fact we should have acted sooner.  Allot sooner as in just after WWI.  The way that aftermath was handled created the environment that allowed Hitler to rise to power and created the catalyst for WWII

Isolationism is a childish idea, it amounts to saying "if you ignore the bully he will go away".  Ultimately we live on a very small planet and with in, an ever shrinking culture (thanks in large part to the Internet) we can not simply ignore the plight of our neighbors for it will soon become ours.  We must however take more care with our choices in how we act, it appears to me that violence is the option far to often taken as the solution.  I blame this largely on our educational system, it is pathetic.  Our history classes are based on rote memorization of dates and names instead it should focus on the socio economic pressures that created events in history, the why and how not the when and who if you will.
Justin

stebold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2010, 11:44:44 PM »
I don't get how anybody with two brain cells to rub together can repeat any ridiculous republikan talking point or vote for their policies. 
All I'm gonna say.  :-\

Son of Liberty

  • --Son of Liberty
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 42
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #41 on: April 02, 2010, 04:00:30 AM »

Mr. SoL

Ha, you don't have to call me Mr.  I'm 10 years younger than you!  But I agree we should have entered WWII earlier as well.

I don't get how anybody with two brain cells to rub together can repeat any ridiculous republikan talking point or vote for their policies.  
All I'm gonna say.  :-\


Well now, that doesn't do much for a debate.  But I can assure you I have a few brain cells to my name.  I have a full academic scholarship at Winthrop University and will be graduating with an Honors Degree.  I earned my EMT certification at a technical college while taking 20 hours worth of my degree-required courses back at Winthrop.  I also know that Republican is spelt with a c, not a k  ;).

Back to healthcare though--I've read that a lot of rich Canadians come to America for more advanced treatments they can't get in Canada, but some Americans actually go to Canada to get cheaper medications.  Just from this data alone, I would assume that America's capitalist view on healthcare has resulted in more advanced medical technology and techniques through competition between the medical firms, while Canada's system results in more inexpensive medical treatment.  Thoughts on this?

--Son of Liberty
« Last Edit: April 02, 2010, 04:32:18 AM by Son of Liberty »
All men die.  Few men really live.
--Brave Heart

Lasse_C

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 305
  • The price of skill is neverending practice
    • Photo galleries (Text in Swedish)
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #42 on: April 02, 2010, 11:18:03 PM »
I would assume that America's capitalist view on healthcare has resulted in more advanced medical technology and techniques through competition between the medical firms, while Canada's system results in more inexpensive medical treatment.  Thoughts on this?

--Son of Liberty


Well, to me the obvious conclusion is that there are different ways to go in a health care system. To express it in a perhaps oversimplified way:

* In the US system first priority is highly advanced, highly skilled care for those who can afford it, either by themselves or through insurance (which, in turn, they have to afford)

* In the Canadian system first priority is a more basic care, but affordable to more people.

There are pros and cons in both systems, of course. In an ideal world you would have both, naturally, but any system has to be financed, the money has to come from somewhere and no funds are unlimited. I think I have heard that in Saudi Arabia health care is both advanced and entirely free - but for Saudi citizens only...

In other words: You have to decide which system you think is the best and makes the best use of available money. A system that gives the absolutely best care money can buy to those who can pay is excellent - for  those who can pay. It is terrible for those who can not. What decides if you live or die is decided more by your bank account than how serious your illness is...

A system that guarantees everybody basic (but not necessarily advanced) health care, but no more than that, has definite advantages - but not for those who are in absolute need of that very advanced care. In other words fine as long as you do not get a serious, complicated illness. In that case you die, even if it is technically possible to cure you.

So, whatever way you choose, unless you have limitless finances you can not have it all! There will always be someone will not get what he/she wants/needs, or who gets the disadvantages of a change. You have to find a way to get as many of the good sides of both as possible, I think; necessary health care for as many as possbible while still offering advanced care as far as possible. As I understand it, president Obama is trying to take some steps towards that. OK, I live in far-off Sweden, but I find it very hard to see what he tries to achieve as a bad thing.


Lasse
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 01:32:55 PM by Lasse_C »

SpitfireTriple

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
  • Seek Truth
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2010, 01:39:54 PM »
Good!  Back on track with healthcare!

Okay, threads have a habit of turning whatever way they want to turn, but I'd have thought the healthcare debate is big enough without having to drag in immigration, 9-11, War in Iraq.  Let's start separate threads on these if we want to.

Derek:  That's a horror story you have there of NHS experiences.  Unfortunately, whilst I am lucky enough to have had very little experience of hospitals, I can believe it.

I've worked in the private sector, and I've worked in the public sector.  Both have their strengths, and both have their weaknesses.  In the private sector, the ultimate driver is money.  Which sounds bad.  It often is bad.  BUT when your money comes from customers rather than from a faceless government,  customers become important people. Fail to look after your customers, and you'll soon have no business.  And no money.  A well run private organisation will live and breath this philosophy at every level. Result: good service, good value for money.

Conversely, the public sector is "free" from profit constraints.  But that means, despite internal memos to the contrary, "customers, "service users", patients", whatever you want to call them, are not the focus of the operation.  They can be pushed around and mistreated because - hey - most of them have nowhere else to go.   Having paid their heavy taxes that finance the NHS, they have no money left over for private healthcare.  They merely "get in the way". Some customers, on the other hand, get priority treatment; Britain's politically-correct NHS will spend tens of thousands giving lesbians fertility treatment.  Now, I've got nothing against lesbians, but if a person makes a lifestyle choice that involves, for example, not having sex with the opposite sex, they should in my book accept that the taxpayer should not be paying to get round that lifestyle choice.

An elderly lady I once knew  was having a shower in an NHS hospital.  In strolled a male cleaner.  "Don't worry love" he chirped. "I've seen it all before".  Until this point, the only man who had ever seen her naked was her late husband.  Imagine her shame, her humiliation, her impotent anger.  But hey, it would be inconvenient for the hospital to arrange for female cleaners in female showers.  Just as they find single-sex wards inconvenient - British NHS hospitals get round a government directive to have single-sex wards by the simple expedient of draping a bit of curtain across the middle of the ward.  How dare patients want single-sex wards and facilities?  Don't they know about sexual equality?  Remember, the nanny state knows best.

I will not bore people with the various ridiculous things I have been required to do while in the public sector.  Things that benefitted the "customer" not one jot, things that merely served to protect the manager's back/make the minister look good/make one department look good at the expense of another.  (Okay, these things happen in the private sector too, just not on the same scale) And no-one cared - actually, that's not true, most people did care, they cared a lot, but no-one with clout could or would stand up against the nonsense.  Edit: One did, now that I remember.  He was quietly sacked.  

There was no accountability.  I uncovered a mistake with a computer program that was costing the taxpayer approx ?0.25 million/year.  My boss pushed hard for me, and I got a ?100 bonus.  Whooppee. But the people who set up the original system swanned merrily on their way.  I'll concede it wasn't always like this. Some of the time people managed to do what was best, to deliver the best service they could, unbound by some manager's arbitrary performance spreadsheets.

We will all have our differing political leanings, of course, and that's healthy.  But my experience of a socialised system is that with the best will in the world,  it is inefficient, and delivers poor value for money.  Systems like those in Sweden are renowned for being good, but they cost AN ABSOLUTE FORTUNE.  There is no such thing as "free" healthcare; everything has to be paid for.  We should remember this when we go to criticise private healthcare, or private-sector whatever, for being too money-oriented.

Free healthcare sounds like a good idea, like something a civilised people should aspire to.  But in practice, for all its shortcomings, and there are many, I'd prefer a private system, similar, but not identical to what is presently in place in America. Though for starters you could usefully lose the ambulance-chasing lawyers.  And the penal multi-million medical malpractice awards.  And the medical malpractice insurance that bumps up costs for everyone, while protecting doctors from the consequences of their negligence.  (Take away the insurance and they'll be that bit more careful.  But this needs to be balanced with a more stringent malpractice ethos.)

Americans: Free Healthcare For All sounds like a noble thing; the reality is less ideal.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2010, 10:46:45 AM by SpitfireTriple »

Fairlead

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
  • IGKT Member since 1984 - IGKT Librarian
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2010, 04:30:48 PM »
I have been watching this thread with some interest, as I have spent the last 8 months in the care of the Portsmouth NHS Trust, having the necessary colorectal procedures to treat bowel cancer.  I received excellent pre-surgical and surgical treatment by specialist nurses and surgeons - good to very good nursing care on the wards BUT the hospital administration, and the cleaning by a company called Carrillon, was to say the least, appalling  - (toilets not cleaned for two days as an example - I know because I was sick in one) AND the food was DIABOLICAL - in all my RN Service from 1954 to 1994, I cannot ever remember having food as bad! But it is cooked in Wales and transported to Portsmouth then re-heated on the wards!
Two more weeks and I hope to get my flying medical back and, thanks to the surgeons, I am keeping my fingers crossed that I am now completely clear of the big C.

Fairlead